http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4347
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-04 04:56 ------- (In reply to comment #21) > Also some more meta chacking couldn't hurt: > > body __LW_TEST1 /foo/i > body __LW_TEST2 /bag/i > meta LW_TEST __LW_TEST1 && __LW+TEST2 Hrm. I don't know if we want to flag that or not. I know the above error is supposed to be the "+" instead of a "_" but assume it's not a syntax error and __LW or TEST2 is simply another rule which requires a plugin to be enabled. Should lint fail because of this? For a more concrete example: meta DIGEST_MULTIPLE RAZOR2_CHECK + DCC_CHECK + PYZOR_CHECK > 1 all of those dependencies are via plugin. So if any of those are disabled, should this rule get flagged as having an error? I think we should probably at least throw an info() for a missing dependency or a dependency with a score of 0. I'll attach a short patch that causes a lint error to occur, but it can easily be modified to only throw an info(). ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
